We Support Those Baby-Killin’, Serial Rapin’, Pillaging Troops! Really!
Like most college campuses, the University of Illinois in Champaign has a vocal anti-war movement. This movement, while at least publicly saying they “support the troops”, does everything they can to enforce every bad image upon them.
Luckily, the anti-war movement’s volume is matched by their inability to get much accomplished. Because they value “feelings” over reality, they can rarely accomplish much as they insist on consensus. There was an attempt to begin a campaign of harassment against ROTC students but they weren’t able to agree on how to do it. Some advocated for outright harassment, spitting, throwing fake “blood”, and the like. Others advocated a more PR-friendly response because that would be “received better.” In either case, there is the implicit notion that these “kids” are unable to make good decisions for themselves and must have been lied to. Yet they “support the troops.”
There is something patently offensive about the idea that men and women who are between 18-24 and spend their time in serious endeavors like the military are wholly incapable of self-determination while the same people argue that 12 year old girls have all the faculties they need to make the life or death decision of abortion. It seems that the idea anyone under 25 doing anything besides drinking and carousing is unacceptable.
This is really little more than a re-hash of the 60s anti-establishment fervor. The military is despised because it is the “Establishment.” Any accusation, no matter how far from the truth, is acceptable. It’s not the evidence but the seriousness of the charge, after all. Recently an Army Colonel gave a presentation to a class of 10 year olds on good citizenship. No evidence was shown that this individual was recruiting kids for the armed service, and in fact, all evidence directly contradicts that. Yet the anti-war movement on campus cried foul. To them, a soldier is no different than a pedophile. Yet they “support the troops.”
The same anti-war movement established a police review board in Urbana. Anyone can be on this board except one class of people. Felons can serve, serial rapists can serve, and even people currently serving in prison can serve. The only people not allowed on this board are actual police officers. They are the “establishment” and they can’t be trusted either.
They reiterate every accusation against the US Armed Forces as fact, and even when the facts show the troops are innocent, they still insist on the fiction. Yet they “support the troops.” They object when you “question their patriotism.”
As Whittaker Chambers said, “Experience has taught me that innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does.” They wouldn’t have to claim support for the troops if they actually did support them. At least now, society has less tolerance for their anti-troop behavior than they did during Vietnam.
“To them, a soldier is no different than a pedophile.”
Incredible, astounding conflation.
I was going to approach your evidence and engage this post, but upon looking, I found no sources whatsoever for this sort of thing.
I believe you’re misinterpreting the notion that when somebody is in the Armed Forces, they don’t have a lot of options as to what they do. When you enter the Army (or other such groups), you enter a rigid power structure, and you don’t have a choice as to whether to do this or that. This is an entirely different assertion than your hypothetical condescension.
Comment by Jon O. | October 6, 2006
John, you seemed peeved at my comment on Blogcritics. I didn’t mean to question your observations, and I hope it didn’t come out that way. Sorry.
- “Baronius”
Comment by Paul | October 6, 2006
Jon-
Most of those observations are from private e-mail lists and the letters to the editor section of the News-Gazette. You can read it there, the anti-war people were up in arms that a soldier gave a civics lesson and insisted on calling it recruiting 10 year olds.
Second, I’ve joined the military, I know how it works. Mostly the point I was making is what they do AFTER the military, but you have a high degree of say as to what career you go in before you “sign on the line”. I know for instance, office candidates who go to OCS get their career before they sign, I know in most cases, enlisted do to. Sure a recruiter may pressure one way or the other, but you have a pretty good idea of what you’re going in to do.
The point was, I wasn’t characterizing inside the military, I was criticizing the asseriton that people leaving the military have no options because they have no real job skills. This assertion, made many times, is patently false.
Comment by John Bambenek | October 6, 2006
Ah, Champaign-Urbana! But you have Papa Del’s!
Comment by rightwingprof | October 8, 2006
Hey there. (thats midwestern aka redneck for hello,lol btw.)
Great point!!
I have to admit when someone stands up and says I support the troops but……. I tune out , turn off and ignore them because that means they do not really support anyone but themselves.
Comment by patty | October 8, 2006
First of all, and in my humble opinion, any “anti-war” person who thinks that by attacking a member of the military they’re striking a blow against G.W.’s foreign policies is a moron (and I’m keeping it clean, here). I think we’re all in agreement here. Anyone who’s served in the military knows that staying behind isn’t really an option when deployment time rolls around. These people also aren’t aware that a service member’s options for future employment when released with a less-than-honorable discharge due to conscientious objection or desertion are most likely fewer than for those who served their time. I don’t condone anti-war action against anyone in the military, and I also wouldn’t condone anyone’s joining the military without first considering that they might not live through their enlistment.
I’ve seen idiocy displayed by both “sides” during the war in Iraq. It was suggested at an AWARE meeting that “care packages” be sent to local troops; one dissenter struck that motion down, saying, “they knew what they were getting into.” I also witnessed a woman in a car yell, “Why don’t you just move over there?” at a WWII combat vet–a rescue swimmer who pulled downed pilots out of the water–who was protesting against the war in Iraq on Prospect Avenue.
It seems obvious from this post that both sides of this debate need to me a bit more enlightened. Does no one believe that there is a difference between supporting the troops and supporting the Bush administration and its policies? There are several veteran’s groups that do just that. For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in this post and subsequent comments, there was not one mention of any tangible “support” that anyone’s providing to the troops.
Comment by Mike | October 20, 2006